I am informed not only by my theology.
I am also informed in this present discussion by your stark inability to hold up your side of the debate.
FReegards!
Posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:34 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Scientist and children’s television personality Bill Nye, in a newly released online video, panned biblical creationism and implored American parents who reject the scientific theory of evolution not to teach their beliefs to their youngsters.
“I say to the grownups, ’If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we’ve observed in the universe that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it,’” said Nye, best known as host of the educational TV series “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”
The video, titled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children,” was posted on Thursday by the online knowledge forum Big Think to YouTube and had netted more than 1.3 million views as of Monday.
In it Nye said widespread public doubt in the scientific concept of evolution — which holds that human beings and all other forms of life developed from a process of random genetic mutation and natural selection — would hinder a country long renowned for its innovation, intellectual capital and a general grasp of science.
“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in (evolution) it holds everybody back, really,” he said.
According to a Gallup poll that surveyed 1,012 adults in May, 46 percent of Americans can be described as creationists for believing that God created humans in their present form at some point within the last 10,000 years.
Education advocates have argued for decades over what children should be taught in public schools in regard to the formation of the universe, life and humans.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that requiring biblical creation to be taught in public schools alongside evolution was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment separation between church and state.
In April, a law was passed that protects teachers in Tennessee who wish to critique or analyze what they view as the scientific weaknesses of evolution, making it the second state, after Louisiana, to enable teachers to more easily espouse alternatives to evolution in the classroom.
Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, “You’re just not going to get the right answers.” And he called evolution the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.”
Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country’s future, he added, saying, “We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.”
Nye’s popular show, produced by Disney’s Buena Vista Television, aired from September 1993 to June 1998 on PBS and was also syndicated to local television stations.
Betty Boop was correct scientifically, not Darwinism. But way to give it the good old college try!
What is it exactly that makes that "the better question"?
More germain to the discussion, better exposure of what's really going on here. Re-read betty boop's fine points if you must.
If that's all you've got, we'll just let it rest there.
I think betty is entirely capable of determining what questions are germain to her own discussions, and asking them.
You are of course, free to disagree.
Yeah, wow, liberalism on parade. It's the only way liberals can get their agenda's, in this case Darwinism, accepted. And you seriously thought somehow science was gonna be off-limits? Objective?
Just...
WOW!
Maybe that was too much to hope for.......
And here I ignorantly thought that since there hasn’t been scientific debate about the fact of evolution for 160 years that even Free Republic had caught up.
I guess not.
“...fact of evolution...”
There’s your problem, right there.
No. Not at all.
I know you, and many others here disagree, but that doesn’t change a thing.
It’s all Darwinism has, and why don’t you people rest when you’re shown the multiple flaws?
Darwinism.
There, finished it for you.
If we are going to do a careful reading of scripture, God made man after His image and likeness. It does not say He ushered in a process that led, ultimately, to a creation that, through said process, resulted in a creature after His image and likeness (What kind of God would do such a thing? Which gives Him the greater glory?) The Pre-Fall notion that God implemented a system of evolutionary forces diminishes God and requires a “reading into” His word things that are not directly suggested by it.
The “Post-Fall” scenario is equally confounding. After God created all things...sin entered the world (through the disobedience of His creatures). This brought into effect the “force” (death) that counters God’s intention for His creation (life.) If the biblical principle of sin and sin’s consequence is true, then how can one conclude that God had put into effect a system that, now tainted by the flaw of sin, would result in an ever-improving, ever-evolving creation that exceeds what He originally brought into existence? Once more, God is diminished.
These things are spiritually discerned, as are all things pertaining to life and godliness, and only by faith can they be understood.
That's the objective.
Facts are facts...except when they aren’t. You can’t change the fact that evolution is not fact. It’s theory.
I am informed not only by my theology.
I am also informed in this present discussion by your stark inability to hold up your side of the debate.
FReegards!
If you were doing that well, I don’t think you’d be having to resort to personal attacks.
Ignorant thought is what is expected of those that espouse evolutionary dogma.
So glad to see you acknowledge the ignorance of your thought processes right up front and with your first posting to this thread.
... the fact of evolution ...
... a "fact," which you simply do not have, and no evolutionist who was ever acquainted even casually with the scientific method would ever claim as fact. Chalk that up to yet one more ignorant posting form you.
... Free Republic had caught up.
More correctly, FreeRepublic has caught on to the posers, and continues to distinguish itself apart from the Darwin Central retreads such as yourself, "Paradox," "tactalogic," et. al, who try to impress readers with conservatism they parrot for convenience, but in reality is something quite foreign to their collective world-view.
Playing the victim card are we now?
Do your self-inflicted wounds some how taste better to you, just because you are the only one who will lick them?
You Darwinist liberals are all the same.
FReegards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.